On Connect solved discussions were locked after a month of inactivity.
Unsolved discussions were locked after 6 months of inactivity.
There was no option to post a reply - just a note at the bottom of the post saying :
"This post is locked. Please start a new discussion".
Please reinstate these rules as we now see that users tags onto old posts from way back with similar issues (seen with 2007 and 2013 posts).
I've been doing some research on what our options are for auto locking threads that are beyond a certain age, but it doesn't look like there is any way of automating this. A feature request was started with lithium a few years ago, but nothing has come of it yet. It's going to have to be a manual process until the feature is added to the platform or until we find a work-around.
Locking posts simply because of their age makes no sense.
Please explain what problems are caused if somebody posts to an old thread?
It doesn't matter how old a post is. If the problem is still a problem then the fact that it has been going on for so long only becomes more relevant.
Here is an example of why old posts shouldn't be arbitrarily locked because of their age or inactivity:
If the thread had been closed after a month of inactivity then the fact that the issue has been around for so long would be watered down, if not lost by becoming just an embedded link in a new thread and another new thread and then another new thread ad nauseum...
Your example was an "Idea" thread (and I thought that "Idea" section got lost in the migration?).
Idea threads should not get locked, I agree.
IMHO, "Issue" threads should get locked when there is no activity after some time period. Otherwise you have the problem of people coming across an old thread, that was likely never solved because the OP vanished, and then the newbie say "me too", but my details are different.... and the water turns to mud. They are likely different issues, different causes, but that have on thing in common that seduced the "me too" post.
And, one long messy thread with multiple people with issues and multiple people offering suggestions without proper threading and quoting is just likely to get frustrating for everyone.
A new thread gets more attention and proper troubleshooting can be done.
And, I don't think the "me too" newbie has the ability to mark a thrad as solved, so it doesn't help anybody else.
EDIT: adding a link to your own thread as more ammunition for locking issue threads.
This was a feature of Connect when people started to abuse older posts. They'd start bringing up posts from years before which either had no solution, or simply no response, and was done just to get points...hence the removal of a +1 for every post.
It worked very well and the abuse of older posts appearing stopped. If people had an issue similar to an older query, then they'd just put in a URL link which worked much better. So locking threads after a certain period of time works very well! Posts were never closed after a month of inactivity by the way on Connect, it was more like 6 months...
The old Connect pointing system was open to abuse and they changed it. Old posts or new, people were abusing the pointing system not the age of posts. Posts used to be locked after a month of inactivity if they had a post marked as solved. If a thread was unsolved and had no activity fro six months it would also be locked.
If the thread is marked as solved by the OP, I have no issue with it being locked, as it's the OPs (or moderators) decision to close the thread.
I think a good compromise would be that, if a post has not been marked as solved and gets locked, either automatically or by a moderator, then it should be allowed to be reopened if the request for reopening it is reasonable. If somebody knows they have to approach a moderator to reopen a locked case then the reopening of an old case becomes identified, by the nature of its reopening and vetting by a moderator, as a more weighty case. The alternative is that an unsolved, old and locked case spawns a b'stard swarm of other unsolved cases, all with the same root issue.
@Larry_Fine Bad or sloppy or newb posters will be bad, sloppy or newb in old threads and new threads alike. If a thread is old I see no problem in skipping to the end of the thread if you want to see the latest input. If the thread offends you because it has, in your opinion, turned to mud and has no further value to you, then unsubscribe and move on.
It's your choice to have a smaller number of longer threads or a larger number of small threads. Do you like your soup chunky or thick? Ultimately, the same volume of post traffic is going to happen either way.